This review is from: The Elements of Moral Philosophy with Dictionary of Philosophical Terms (Paperback)

Supralapsiarian's comments are a bit unfair to Rachels. The book overall is very thought-provoking, despite the occasional strawman (mostly due to his secular bias). It *is* weak on abortion, homosexuality, religious morality, and the divine command theory for example. Rachels picks the most oversimplified positions in these areas to criticize.

There is no real problem with "reification of Reason" though. It's just useful shorthand. All his statements about Reason (capital R) can be translated into statements about reason and reasons (lower case r). And he does not set himself up as "a stable throne in the realm of moral epistemology". He says repeatedly things like:

"Moral truths are truths of reason. Such truths are objective in the sense that they are true independently of what we might want or think."

"Reason says what it says, regardless of our opinions or desires".

These are not statements of a subjectivist about reason or morality, or someone just projecting his own opinions or desires. He regards the relationship between moral conclusions and moral reasons as in some sense necessary, and that is a respectable view. It's analogous to the relationship between the conclusion that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F" and statements about this or that sample of copper melting at 1984 degrees F: "Reason" (i.e. objective rules of reasoning) determines that connection, not us (by what we believe or desire). Regardless of our beliefs or desires, the fact that this or that sample of copper melts at 1984 degrees F *is* (part of) a good reason for thinking that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F".

Similarly, there are good and sometimes conclusive reasons for some moral views (ex. see his section on proof in Ethics), and those are good reasons regardless of what anyone (himself included) believes or desires. In fact, a case can be made for saying that Rachels accepts a sort of Natural Law Theory (a theory that he claims to reject).

The Elements of Moral Philosophy with Dictionary of Philosophical Terms007282574XJames RachelsMcGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/LanguagesThe Elements of Moral Philosophy with Dictionary of Philosophical TermsBooks
Great Introductory Text
Supralapsiarian's comments are a bit unfair to Rachels. The book overall is very thought-provoking, despite the occasional strawman (mostly due to his secular bias). It *is* weak on abortion, homosexuality, religious morality, and the divine command theory for example. Rachels picks the most oversimplified positions in these areas to criticize.

There is no real problem with "reification of Reason" though. It's just useful shorthand. All his statements about Reason (capital R) can be translated into statements about reason and reasons (lower case r). And he does not set himself up as "a stable throne in the realm of moral epistemology". He says repeatedly things like:

"Moral truths are truths of reason. Such truths are objective in the sense that they are true independently of what we might want or think."

"Reason says what it says, regardless of our opinions or desires".

These are not statements of a subjectivist about reason or morality, or someone just projecting his own opinions or desires. He regards the relationship between moral conclusions and moral reasons as in some sense necessary, and that is a respectable view. It's analogous to the relationship between the conclusion that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F" and statements about this or that sample of copper melting at 1984 degrees F: "Reason" (i.e. objective rules of reasoning) determines that connection, not us (by what we believe or desire). Regardless of our beliefs or desires, the fact that this or that sample of copper melts at 1984 degrees F *is* (part of) a good reason for thinking that "copper melts at 1984 degrees F".

Similarly, there are good and sometimes conclusive reasons for some moral views (ex. see his section on proof in Ethics), and those are good reasons regardless of what anyone (himself included) believes or desires. In fact, a case can be made for saying that Rachels accepts a sort of Natural Law Theory (a theory that he claims to reject).
MMJanuary 18, 2005

Overall: 5

Be the first person to comment on this review.

Post a comment

To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASINproduct-title]]
(What's this?)

Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts.
(Learn more)

Name:

Badge:

This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.

After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed. Learn more

Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed. Learn more

System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment. Learn more

The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below. Learn more